pow

Think of it as a front-drive BMW X3 without the Nurburgring pedigree.

xB looks an awful lot like the Groove..

I've recorded the Passat's (1.8T, 5A, 2002, 62K mi) fuel consumption since 3/8/2007, so here goes... 3/8 - 214.8 mi - 12.34 gal - 17.4 mpg 3/22 - 252.8 mi - 13.26 gal - 19.1 mpg - 18 mi/day 3/31 - 376.8 mi - 18.23 gal - 20.7 mpg - 41 mi/day 4/16 - ??? 4/29 - 213.6 mi - 13.18 gal - 16.2 mpg - 16 mi/day 5/7 - 257.7 mi - 12.81 gal - 20.1 mpg - 32 mi/day 5/18 - 213.3 mi - 11.93 gal - 17.9 mpg - 19 mi/day 5/25 - 266.3 mi - 13.83 gal - 19.3 mpg - 38 mi/day 6/4 - 255.7 mi - 13.06 gal - 19.6 mpg - 25 mi/day I do mostly hilly, errand, city driving with the exception of blasts up and down Angeles Crest Hwy. I do try hypermiling once in a while (fumbling between instant/avg MPG displays, rolling through stop signs, accelerating slowly, shifting very early, never going past 2K rpm), but ultimately I end up using more fuel because I get annoyed and follow it all up with rapid acceleration. Also our city is up a few miles of hills, and usually that changes the average from 41.4 mpg (downhill) to 18.7 mpg (back up the hill) pretty quickly... edit - It's also interesting to note our 400-lb heavier, six-cylinder BMW gets similar MPG under similar city driving conditions. The benefits of the Passat's four-cylinders only come into play on the highway, where I can average 35 MPG at 70 MPH, according to the instant trip display. Turbos, as required for brisk acceleration, guzzle fuel...

He's found a life...

No, head restraint simulation is weighed less than an actual crash test.

Wow, 77K YTD Prius sales.

Makes sense. The Accord's IMA is way too "mild." It can't propel itself on electricity alone, and much like GM's BAS, most of its MPG increases come from non-hybrid related things.

It's more like $90 (6-8 qt synthetic), but the intervals are ~ 12K miles. And all service (oil changes, brakes, wipers, inspections) is covered the first 4yr/50K. You can extend it to 6yr/100K for $1045.

I read on the CTS blog that Bluetooth will still be a dealer-installed accessory...

X3 3.0si VUE Redline CX-7 Grand Touring RDX 13.8 VUE XR/XE V-6 Equinox Sport/Torrent GXP RAV4 Sport V-6 Forester 2.5 XT Escape/Mariner Hybrid VUE I-4/Green Line CR-V RAV4 I-4 LR2 Outlander Equinox/Torrent Forester Grand Vitara Escape/Mariner Sportage/Tucson Compass/Patriot

Bimmer - 6 Ody - 6 Passat - 4 Volv - 4

Don't rotaries have a problem with emissions and fuel consumption too?

Front / Side / Headrest Saab 9-3: Good / Good / Good Volvo C70: Good / Good / Good Mitsu Eclipse: Good / Good / Marginal VW Eos: Good / Good / Marginal Chrysler Sebring: Good / Good / Poor Camry Solara: Good / Acceptable / Poor Ford Mustang: Acceptable / Good / Poor BMW 3-series: Good / Marginal / Poor Audi A4: Good / Marginal / Poor Pontiac G6: Acceptable / Marginal / Marginal News Release • May 31, 2007 Status Report, Vol. 42, No. 6 — Special issue: crashworthiness of convertibles 1st time Institute tests convertibles: Saab & Volvo models are top performers; 3 are marginal in side impact test ARLINGTON, VA — The Saab 9-3 and Volvo C70 earn the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's TOP SAFETY PICK award for superior crash protection in the first tests the Institute has conducted of 10 midsize convertible models. The Saab and Volvo earn the top rating of good for protection in front, side, and rear crashes, and both models include standard electronic stability control (ESC), which research shows can help drivers avoid crashes. The lowest rated convertible model overall is the Pontiac G6. It's acceptable for frontal crash protection but only marginal for protection in side and rear impacts. While the Audi A4 and BMW 3 series earn good ratings in frontal offset tests, both are rated marginal for side impact protection and poor for protection in rear crashes. The TOP SAFETY PICK designation is intended to make it easier for consumers to find top-rated vehicles without sorting through reams of crash test results. To earn this award, a vehicle must have good ratings in all 3 Institute crash tests. It also must have ESC. The Institute adds a requirement for convertibles which must be equipped with rollbars designed to preserve occupants' headroom if a convertible rolls over. Both the 9-3 and C70 are equipped with standard pop-up rollbars behind the rear head restraints that deploy if sensors detect a serious crash. "The performances of the 9-3 and C70 are impressive," says Institute president Adrian Lund. "These cars combine what convertible buyers should look for if they're shopping with safety in mind. The Saab and Volvo not only provide good protection in high-speed front and side crashes but also have good seat and head restraint designs for protecting against whiplash in rear crashes." "We wanted to test convertibles because sales are increasing," Lund says. "We also wanted to evaluate a group of vehicles that automakers wouldn't expect us to test to see if crashworthiness improvements in mainstream cars also are being built into convertibles. For the most part we found that this is happening." Five models earn the highest rating of good for front and side crash protection. Seven of the 10 convertibles have standard side airbags designed to protect the heads of occupants in the front seats, and 8 have ESC as standard or optional equipment. Absence of roof is inherent disadvantage: High-speed crashes are violent events, and the roof of a hardtop helps to keep people's heads and arms from flailing outside the vehicle. Roofs also provide protection if a vehicle rolls over. Data from real-world crashes indicate that the overall risk of death isn't higher in a convertible, but this doesn't mean there aren't any safety disadvantages. The absence of a roof makes it a challenge to design a convertible for safety. The roof helps to maintain the rigidity of the structure around the occupant compartment and keep the compartment intact in a serious crash. The main structures of convertibles have to be strengthened to compensate for the support that's lost in removing the roof. The Institute's crash test results show that many modern convertibles compensate well. For example, the 9-3 convertible achieves the same good front, side, and rear crash test ratings as the 4-door sedan version. Big price tag doesn't ensure a safer car: While the 2 TOP SAFETY PICK winners are relatively expensive, price doesn't necessarily predict good crash test ratings. Two of the least expensive models among the 10 the Institute tested are the Chrysler Sebring and Mitsubishi Eclipse, both of which recently were redesigned and earn good ratings in front and side crash tests. "You could spend twice as much for an Audi A4 convertible, which is an older design based on the previous A4 sedan, but it's rated marginal in our side test," Lund says. Based on the Volkswagen Eos's performance, the Institute expects a redesigned A4 to perform better when it's released. VW and Audi are owned by the same parent company. To reduce the risk if a convertible rolls over, it's important to have rollbars, which may be either fixed in place or deploy automatically if sensors detect the possibility of a rollover. Pop-up rollbars are standard on the 9-3, C70, Eos, 3 series, and A4 but unavailable on any of the domestic or Asian brands the Institute tested. "It makes sense that a rollbar would help preserve some headroom, just as we hope a fixed roof would," Lund says. "But rollbars aren't the same as having a fixed roof. We don't yet know if convertibles with the bars have lower rollover death rates than convertibles without them. Another innovation on some new convertibles is that the vinyl or cloth top is replaced by a multipiece hardtop that folds into the trunk. It's standard on the C70, Eos, 3 series, and G6. It's optional on the Chrysler Sebring. Folding hardtops aren't as rigid as fixed roofs so they wouldn't be expected to make a convertible more crashworthy than if the top were soft. Foldtops are for comfort, not safety. "Of course, without a top all bets are off if you're not using a safety belt. Good test results don't mean convertibles are as protective as comparable hardtop cars," Lund points out. Problems found in frontal tests: The structure of the Pontiac G6's occupant compartment held up well during the frontal test, but there was a problem with the driver seat. It came loose on one of its tracks and moved forward 4 inches on the left side. The dummy's head slid around the left side of the airbag and hit the instrument panel. "We've rarely seen a dummy's head hit the instrument panel in our frontal test," Lund says. Overall the G6 is rated acceptable for frontal protection. "Seats shouldn't come loose in crashes, so we can't rate the G6 good," Lund adds. Measures recorded on the dummy's head, neck, and chest indicate low risk of serious injury in these areas of the body, but the poorly controlled movement of the dummy during the impact may have contributed to high forces on its right leg. The Institute conducted 2 frontal tests of the Mustang. In the first test, the driver door partially opened late in the crash. Even though this didn't significantly affect the driver dummy's movement during the impact, doors shouldn't open because in some crashes this could lead to partial or complete ejection of occupants. Ford engineers found that the window glass in the down position pushed on the door latch during the crash. Structure was added in the door to prevent the glass from contacting the latch mechanism, and then the engineers asked the Institute to test the Mustang again. In the second test with the change, the door remained closed. The Mustang is rated acceptable instead of good overall because the structure isn't good, and the dummy's head bottomed out the airbag. The resulting head acceleration was high. The head was struck by the windshield pillar. Side impact protection is marginal in 3 cars: The Institute's side test represents what happens when the striking vehicle is a pickup or SUV. The BMW 3 series and Audi A4 equipped with standard side airbags and the G6 with side airbags as optional equipment earn the second lowest rating for side impact protection. "The 3 series and Pontiac G6 are especially disappointing because they're new models," Lund says. "Other auto manufacturers have figured out how to provide good side impact protection for occupants of convertibles." The G6 is equipped with optional side airbags designed to protect the torsos but not the heads of front-seat occupants. In the side test, the driver dummy's head struck the windowsill. This caused a high head acceleration. In a real-world crash of similar severity, a serious skull fracture and brain injuries would be possible. A taller person's head also might be struck by the hood of an oncoming SUV or pickup. The 3 series is equipped with standard side airbags designed to protect front-seat occupants' heads as well as their torsos. However, injury measures recorded on the driver dummy indicate the possibility of rib fractures and internal organ injuries in real-world crashes of similar severity. "None of the 10 convertibles provides side airbag protection for people riding in back seats. We didn't record high injury forces on any of the dummies in the back seats, but in a crash at a different speed or configuration the heads of back-seat passengers would be at risk without side airbags," Lund notes. Rear crash protection is mostly poor: Significant differences also were apparent among the convertibles in the protection they afford in rear crashes. Only the Volvo and Saab are equipped with seat/head restraint designs that provide good protection against whiplash injury. The other 8 models are rated marginal or poor for rear crash protection. "It isn't hard or expensive to design a seat to prevent neck injury in a rear-end crash," Lund says. "Some of these manufacturers like Audi, Ford, and Volkswagen already have seat designs elsewhere in their lines of vehicles that are rated good for whiplash prevention, but these automakers haven't put the good seat/head restraints in their convertibles." How vehicles are evaluated: The Institute's frontal crashworthiness evaluations are based on results of 40 mph frontal offset crash tests. Each vehicle's overall evaluation is based on measurements of intrusion into the occupant compartment, injury measures recorded on a Hybrid III dummy in the driver seat, and analysis of slow-motion film to assess how well the restraint system controlled dummy movement during the test. Side evaluations are based on performance in a crash test in which the side of a vehicle is struck by a barrier moving at 31 mph. The barrier represents the front end of a pickup or SUV. Ratings reflect injury measures recorded on 2 instrumented SID-IIs dummies, assessment of head protection countermeasures, and the vehicle's structural performance during the impact. Injury measures obtained from the 2 dummies, one in the driver seat and the other in the back seat behind the driver, are used to determine the likelihood that a driver and/or passenger in a similar real-world crash would sustain serious injury to various parts of the body. The movements and contacts of the dummies' heads during the test also are evaluated. Structural performance is based on measurements indicating the amount of B-pillar intrusion into the occupant compartment. Rear crash protection is rated according to a 2-step procedure. Starting points for the ratings are measurements of head restraint geometry — the height of a restraint and its horizontal distance behind the back of the head of an average-size man. Seat/head restraints with good or acceptable geometry are tested dynamically using a dummy that measures forces on the neck. This test simulates a collision in which a stationary vehicle is struck in the rear at 20 mph. Seats without good or acceptable geometry are rated poor overall because they cannot be positioned to protect many people. ------------------------------------- Interestingly, all convertibles tested but the Solara have "good" structure/safety cage ratings in the side test, which is rare compared to other vehicle types. Manufacturers really are beefing up cabrio structures to compensate for their inherent lack of rigidity. The injury measures have more to do with IIHS-specific test procedures. I suspect a redesigned torso airbag are coming soon for the BMW and Audi.

Sounds like a diesel lawnmower with a fart can...

Both sound great to me... the 2.5 is particularly impressive. With the right exhaust, it sounds like half a Lambo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPnZS0zwQTI

Well, within the compact class, the Cobalt is in the lower end and competes against the Spectras, Elantras, and Corollas. The ASTRA is the one that competes against Civics, Rabbits, 3s, etc.

BMW dealers (or any others that are allocated cars) are generally cool. They know if you don't buy it, someone else will.

The L43016, which I use on the Passat, is made in Germany by Mann. It appears to be high quality and usually retails for $13, though I buy them in bulk whenever Pep Boys has their 99-cent Purolator coupons. The L25247 (paper filter for BMW) used to be made by Hengst in Germany, but they've since been replaced by cheapo ones from China.

I would drive one to school... I passed so many parking spaces this morning that would have been fine in a Smart. It's also a lot cooler than a Rio or Aveo (less "welfare" and more "posh seventh car".)

http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests...green-line.html Tested: 2007 Saturn Aura Green Line - Short Take Road Tests Sorry, Saturn, but we don’t foresee long lines forming at the dealership for this budget hybrid. BY JARED GALL, May 2007 Strolling to the parking lot to hop into the Aura at the end of the day, we noticed our Aura Green Line was red. A red Green Line? How about a Red Green line: “If the women don’t find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.” The Red Green Show was a Canadian parody of home-improvement and outdoor shows that ran on CBC and PBS from 1991 to 2006. Main character Red Green was known for his nuggets of humble wit. What would Red think of the Aura Green Line? Well, the people have spoken, and they already seem to think the Aura is a handsome car. We do. Red, what if the women do find you handsome? Does that mean you don’t have to be handy, then? Good for the Aura Green Line, because the mild hybrid powertrain in this car is not particularly handy at acceleration or saving fuel. This is the same drivetrain that powers the Saturn Vue Green Line, and not the sort of hybrid that will whoosh around on nothing but electric power. Rather, the electric motor spins the accessory drive when the Aura is stopped, allowing the gasoline engine to shut down when stationary. When the driver takes his or her foot off the brake pedal, the engine starts back up. GM says this mild hybrid, although it saves less fuel than a full hybrid, is a cheaper way to hybrid enlightenment, which is correct. With a base price of $22,695, this is the cheapest hybrid on the market today, but just barely. The Aura only undercuts the Toyota Prius by $100. Our example came with a single option, the $375 Preferred package, that includes a power driver seat, power mirrors, and steering-wheel audio controls. All hybrids do the start/stop trick, but in most the action is (almost) transparent, and the driver has to pay close attention to notice the engine starting and stopping. In our long-term Lexus RX400h, often the only way to tell if the engine was running or not was to look at the power-flow display on the driver information screen. All you have to do to tell if the Aura Green Line is running or not is to be in it, since the 2.4-liter four-cylinder is as smooth and quiet as a riot in a minefield. Since we don’t spend much of our time idling in traffic here in Ann Arbor, Michigan, this hybrid solution netted less-than-spectacular results for the Aura Green Line’s fuel-economy numbers. We averaged 23 mpg, only 3 mpg better than a V-6 Aura and a number we’re sure Saturn would rather we didn’t report. Granted, that number includes our track-testing session and flogging the car from every stop just to hear the poor 2.4 suffer, but every car we test must protect its petroleum reserves against the same onslaught. We could get 23 mpg in a much more entertaining car, one with more than a mere 164 horsepower, one capable of reaching 60 mph in less than 9.4 seconds and with a quarter-mile better than 17.3 seconds at 83 mph. This lethargic acceleration is due also to the gearing in the four-speed automatic, which, to keep revs down at speed, stretches the ratios farther than an engine with only 159 pound-feet of torque should. More than four gears would be useful. Heck, they’ve been putting 21-speed transmissions on bicycles for years that could probably handle the Green Line’s torque. We could get that sort of fuel economy in a car that delivered much more driving excitement than did the Aura, what with its underwhelming 0.76-g skidpad performance, too. Okay, that number was no doubt hindered by the budget Uniroyal Tiger Paws, tires that grip the road with all the feeble tenacity of the runt of the litter and scream just as shrilly at almost any provocation. More grip in the Aura Green Line would be useful venturing onto the freeway, as its lackadaisical acceleration means the safest way to enter traffic is by building as much speed as possible while orbiting the on-ramp before actually having to merge, therefore minimizing the amount of time spent in the travel lanes while the overburdened four-cylinder strains to get the car to speed. We could get better fuel economy and better performance from other vehicles, but could we do it for less than $23,070? Well, actually, yeah, we could. How about a four-cylinder Honda Accord or Nissan Altima? GM is working on a full hybrid powertrain for the 2009 Vue, a system that will cost more but save more fuel. We hope that powertrain will be shared with the Aura. VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan PRICE AS TESTED: $23,070 (base price: $22,695) ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 16-valve inline-4, 164-hp, 128 lb-ft; AC permanent-magnet electric motor, 5 hp, 48 lb-ft; combined system, 164 hp TRANSMISSION: 4-speed automatic DIMENSIONS: Wheelbase: 112.3 in Length: 190.0 in Width: 70.3 in Height: 57.6 in Curb weight: 3510 lb C/D TEST RESULTS: Zero to 60 mph: 9.4 sec Zero to 100 mph: 27.8 sec Street start, 5–60 mph: 9.9 sec Standing ¼-mile: 17.3 sec @ 83 mph Braking, 70–0 mph: 192 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.76 g FUEL ECONOMY: EPA city/highway driving: 28/35 mpg C/D-observed: 23 mpg -------------------------------- With the 2008 EPA test procedures, I have a feeling the BAS-system benefits would be negligible...9.

It's all about the Sanjaya... Melinda and LaKisha were the best, and I can't stand Jordin.

Fusion hybrid is already coming. They bolted in the Escape's powertrain and voila. Maybe there'll be an AWD Fusion hybrid... who knows.

The Escape hybrids in NY are reputedly doing well... some have reached 175K miles now with no major problems.

I was being sarcastic. I have yet to see any such non-empirical evidence over a period of time.

I love it. It's very frosty/icy-cool.